1 min read
ByAnshel Pfeffer, Anshel Pfeffer
In Israel, spats between the government and the Supreme Court are not uncommon.
Elected politicians are naturally miffed when justices who have never had to explain themselves to the public rule against their policies and declare their actions unconstitutional.
The anger in parts of Whitehall and the British media last week over the ruling that the government cannot activate Article 50 without first going to Parliament is very similar.
However, the latest public falling-out between Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked and Supreme Court President Miriam Naor marks a new high point in hostility between politicians and the judiciary.
The conflict was sparked by a law tabled by MK Robert Ilatov of Yisrael Beiteinu that would allow new justices to be appointed to the Judges Appointment Committee by a majority of five of its members. Currently, a successful candidate must receive seven votes from the nine-member committee.
Since three of those on the panel are Supreme Court justices, including the president and her deputy, it means that the serving court can block candidates it opposes. Decisions about appointments are then made in informal deals outside the committee.
Reducing the necessary majority would mean that the four right-wing politicians on the committee - which include the justice minister - along with one of the two representatives of the Israeli Bar Association, can appoint new judges over the objections of the Supreme Court.
Ms Shaked refused to deny she was supporting the proposed law, leading Justice Naor to issue a public letter accusing her of unilaterally changing the procedures and "laying a gun on the table".
Veteran observers of the Israeli court were surprised both by the way Ms Shaked seems to have provoked the row and the fierce response of the mild-mannered Justice Naor. Both women know that the proposed law has virtually no chance of gaining a majority in the Knesset.
So why jeopardise what for the last 18 months, since Ms Shaked's appointment, has largely been a harmonious relationship?
Ms Shaked is under pressure from her right-wing party, Jewish Home, to oppose the Supreme Court, which has ordered the eviction of the Amona settlement outpost. Supporting a law that angers the justices, even if it has no chance of passing, is a popular move with the party's members.
Justice Naor is retiring next year, and a desire to leave her mark may motivated her stance. But it's not just about PR.
Five Supreme Court justices will retire over the next two years. For the coalition, this is a rare opportunity to alter the make-up of the court and appoint justices with views more palatable to the right.
Justice Naor and her colleagues are battling to preserve what they see as the court's tradition of independence.
Both sides will ultimately have to compromise. For now, though, they are shooting across each other's bows.
